DOCSLIB.ORG

The Sustainable Urban Forest a Step-By-Step Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Sustainable Urban Forest A Step-by-Step Approach Michael Leff Davey Institute / USDA Forest Service USFS Philadelphia Field Station Funding and support provided by The USDA Forest Service The Sustainable Urban Forest A Step-by-Step Approach Michael Leff September 27, 2016 Davey Institute / USDA Forest Service USFS Philadelphia Field Station Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the many dozens of people who helped bring The Sustainable Urban Forest to fruition over the past several years. Contributions included general feedback, overall guidance, detailed review, tireless brainstorming, literature research, assorted resources, and a reader’s eye – as well as moral support and encouragement. Many others served as guinea pigs as we field-tested the guide in various settings. Thank you all for your time and efforts. A special thanks to the “Targets & Metrics Team” – Jim Clark, Joe Gregory, Andy Kenney, and Ed Macie. The team labored intensively, collaboratively, and good-humoredly over a period of more than six months to develop an enhanced and updated version of the urban forest sustainability criteria and indicators, as presented in Part VI – Conducting the Evaluation. (The original version of these measures was developed by Jim Clark et al in 1997, and revised by Andy Kenney et al in 2011.) Thanks also to the Morton Arboretum for hosting our team retreat, where we worked through our final revisions in April 2015. – Michael Leff August 28, 2016 Davey Institute and USFS Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Urban Field Station Contributors: Douglas Airhart, Tennessee Technological University Brain Borkowicz, The Davey Tree Expert Company Cara Boucher, National Association of State Foresters Lindsay Campbell, USFS Northern Research Station, NYC Urban Field Station Jim Clark, HortScience, Inc. Chad Clink, The Holden Arboretum Dana Coelho, USFS Urban and Community Forestry, Rocky Mountain Region Jan Davis, USFS Urban and Community Forestry, Washington office Meaghan Eastwood, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Alice Ewen, USFS Urban and Community Forestry, Washington office Nancy Falxa Sonti, USFS Northern Research Station, NYC Urban Field Station Burney Fischer, Indiana University Kevin Frediani, Bicton College (UK) Jason Fristensky, USFS Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Field Station Mike Galvin, SavATree Katie Gibbons, Seattle ReLeaf Joe Gregory, Davey Resource Group Jenny Gulick, Davey Resource Group Alan Halter, City of Austin Jason Henning, Davey Institute and USFS Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Urban Field Station Jennifer Hinrichs, Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition Dana Karcher, Arbor Day Foundation Andy Kenney, University of Toronto Michelle Kondo, USFS Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Urban Field Station Larry Kotchman, National Association of State Foresters Beth Larry, USFS Research and Development Monica Lear, USFS Research and Development Dexter Locke, Clark University Pamela Louks, IN2Trees, Indiana Sarah Low, USFS Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Urban Field Station Ed Macie, USFS Southern Region Scott Maco, Davey Institute Charlie Marcus, Urban Forester, Tallahassee Lauren Marshall, USFS Urban and Community Forestry, Washington office Kyle Meister, SCS Global Services John Melvin, CAL FIRE Peggy Middaugh, Worcester Tree Initiative Dave Nowak, USFS Northern Research Station, SUNY Syracuse Thomas Omolo, USFS Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Urban Field Station Jarlath O'Neil Dunne, University of Vermont Chris Peiffer, Plan-it Geo Michael Rains, USFS Northern Research Station Phillip Rodbell, USFS Northeastern Area Kenton Rogers, Treeconomics (UK) Lara Roman, USFS Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Urban Field Station Keith Sacre, Barcham Trees (UK) Lydia Scott, Morton Arboretum Becky Schwartz, Casey Trees Lacey Shaver, STAR Communities Nancy Stremple, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) Bill Toomey, The Nature Conservancy Larry Wiseman, Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition Kathleen Wolf, University of Washington and USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station This project was made possible by funding from the USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station and a cooperative partnership with The Davey Tree Expert Company. Cover photo credit: https://goo.gl/ci3Jqt To comment on this report, email [email protected] or call 330-673-9511. Table of Contents Table of Contents Part I – Exploring the Urban Forest ........................................................................................ 1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Vibrant Cities and Urban Forests .............................................................................................................. 1 Sidebar: Recommendations from Vibrant Cities and Urban Forests: A National Call to Action .......... 2 How to Use This Guide .............................................................................................................................. 2 Part II – Setting the Stage ...................................................................................................... 4 What Is a “Sustainable Urban Forest”? ..................................................................................................... 4 Sidebar: Sample Sustainability Initiatives ............................................................................................. 4 Sidebar: What Is a Sustainable Community? ........................................................................................ 5 Understanding Tree Benefits – or “Ecosystem Services” ......................................................................... 6 Sidebar: What Are Ecosystem Services? ............................................................................................... 7 Sidebar: Estimating Ecosystem Services with i-Tree Design ................................................................. 8 Green Infrastructure in the Urban Forest ................................................................................................. 8 Sidebar: What Is Green Infrastructure? ................................................................................................ 8 Sidebar: Trees as Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) BMPs ........................................................ 10 Refining Your Focus ................................................................................................................................. 10 Part III – Covering the Canopy .............................................................................................. 12 Why Consider Canopy Cover? ................................................................................................................. 12 Sidebar: What Is ‘Tree Canopy’? ......................................................................................................... 12 What Is an ‘Optimal Canopy Cover Level’? ............................................................................................. 12 Sidebar: Tree Canopy Cover Levels and Goals for Selected Cities ...................................................... 13 Sidebar: Search for Urban Forest Data ............................................................................................... 15 Setting Your Canopy Cover Goals ........................................................................................................... 15 Pursuing Your Canopy Cover Goals ......................................................................................................... 16 Part IV – Gathering the Information ..................................................................................... 19 Taking Stock ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Sidebar: Key Ingredients ..................................................................................................................... 20 Forest Resource Assessments ................................................................................................................. 21 Bottom-Up: Field-Based Assessments ................................................................................................ 21 Complete inventories ...................................................................................................................... 22 Sample-based inventories ............................................................................................................... 22 Sidebar: Tree Inventories and Routine Management Software ......................................................... 22 Top-Down: Tree Canopy Assessments ................................................................................................ 23 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) satellite imagery ................................................................ 23 Aerial photo interpretation ............................................................................................................. 23 High-resolution aerial or satellite imagery ..................................................................................... 25 Plans, Practices, Programs, Policies – and More..................................................................................... 26 Part V – Constructing the Community Framework ...............................................................
Recommended publications
  • Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests

    Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests

    United States Department of SSustainingustaining AAmerica’smerica’s Agriculture Forest Service UUrbanrban TTreesrees andand ForestsForests Northern Research Station State and Private Forestry General Technical DDavidavid J.J. NNowak,owak, SusanSusan M.M. Stein,Stein, PaulaPaula B.B. Randler,Randler, EricEric J.J. GreenGreenfi eeld,ld, Report NRS-62 SSaraara JJ.. CComas,omas, MMaryary AA.. CCarr,arr, aandnd RRalphalph J.J. AligAlig June 2010 A Forests on the Edge Report ABSTRACT Nowak, David J.; Stein, Susan M.; Randler, Paula B.; Greenfi eld, Eric J.; Comas, Sara J.; Carr, Mary A.; Alig, Ralph J. 2010. Sustaining America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 27 p. Close to 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in urban areas and depends on the essential ecological, economic, and social benefi ts provided by urban trees and forests. However, the distribution of urban tree cover and the benefi ts of urban forests vary across the United States, as do the challenges of sustaining this important resource. As urban areas expand across the country, the importance of the benefi ts that urban forests provide, as well as the challenges to their conservation and maintenance, will increase. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current status and benefi ts of America’s urban forests, compare differences in urban forest canopy cover among regions, and discuss challenges facing urban forests and their implications for urban forest management. Key Words: Urban forest, urbanization, land Lisa DeJong The Plain Dealer, Photo: AP management, ecosystem services Urban forests offer aesthetic values and critical services.
  • Weston Tree Inventory

    Weston Tree Inventory

    Tree Inventory Summary Report All Phases Town of Weston, Massachusetts October 2019 Prepared for: Town of Weston Department of Public Works Bypass, 190 Boston Post Road Weston, Massachusetts 02493 Prepared by: Davey Resource Group, Inc. 1500 North Mantua Street Kent, Ohio 44240 800-828-8312 Executive Summary The Town of Weston commissioned an inventory and assessment of trees located within public street rights-of-way (ROW). The inventory was conducted in three phases over three years. Understanding an urban forest’s structure, function, and value can promote management decisions that will improve public health and environmental quality. Davey Resource Group, Inc. “DRG” collected and analyzed the inventory data to understand species composition and tree condition, and to generate maintenance recommendations. This report will discuss the health and benefits of the inventoried street tree population along public roads throughout the Town of Weston. Key Findings A total of 15,437 trees were inventoried. The most common species are: Pinus strobus (white pine), 24%; Quercus rubra (red oak), 13%; Acer rubrum (red maple), 9%; Quercus velutina (black oak), 8%; and A. platanoides (Norway maple), 7%. The overall condition of the tree population is Fair. Risk Ratings include: 14,135 Low Risk trees; 1,210 Moderate Risk trees; and 92 High Risk trees. Primary Maintenance recommendations include: 13,625 Tree Cleans and 1,812 Removals. Davey Resource Group i October 2019 Table of Contents Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................
  • Urban Forestry Manual

    Urban Forestry Manual

    URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Purpose _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Objectives __________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Definition of Terms _____________________________________________________________________________ 3-6 Standard of Care __________________________________________________________________________________ 6 Tree Care Management ________________________________________________________________________ 6-7 Tree Care Procedures _________________________________________________________________________ 8-17 Arboretum & Botanic Garden _______________________________________________________________ 17-18 Utility, Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repairs ________________________________________________ 19-20 New Development and Construction ______________________________________________________ 21-25 Tools and Staffing ___________________________________________________________________________ 26-27 Jurisdiction/Governing Authority __________________________________________________________ 27-29 Tree Donation Program _____________________________________________________________________ 30-31 Glendora’s Protected Trees _____________________________________________________________________ 32 List of Approved and Undesirable Trees ___________________________________________________ 33-35 FAQ’s __________________________________________________________________________________________
  • Partners in Progress

    Partners in Progress

    Partners in Progress CALIFORNIA Final Report 1 Table of Contents California ReLeaf....................................................3 Selection by the US Forest Service......................4 ARRA Sub-Grant Recipients California Urban Forests Council..........................5 The City of Chico....................................................6 Community Services & Employment Training.....7 Daly City.................................................................8 Friends of Oakland Parks......................................9 Friends of the Urban Forest................................10 Goleta Valley Beautiful.........................................11 Hollywood/LA Beautification Team....................12 Koreatown Youth and Community Center.........13 The Los Angeles Conservation Corps.................14 North East Tree....................................................15 Our City Forest.....................................................16 The City of Porterville..........................................17 Sacramento Tree Foundation..............................18 Tree Fresno...........................................................19 The Urban Corps of San Diego County...............20 Urban Releaf.........................................................21 2 alifornia ReLeaf works statewide to promote Calliances among community-based groups, individuals, industry, and government agencies, encouraging each to contribute to the livability of our cities and the protection of our environment by planting and caring for trees. California
  • Urban Forest Assessments Resource Guide

    Urban Forest Assessments Resource Guide

    Trees in cities, a main component of a city’s urban forest, contribute significantly to human health and environmental quality. Urban forest ecosystem assessments are a key tool to help quantify the benefits that trees and urban forests provide, advancing our understanding of these valuable resources. Over the years, a variety of assessment tools have been developed to help us better understand the benefits that urban forests provide and to quantify them into measurable metrics. The results they provide are extremely useful in helping to improve urban forest policies on all levels, inform planning and management, track environmental changes over time and determine how trees affect the environment, which consequently enhances human health. American Forests, with grant support from the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Program, developed this resource guide to provide a framework for practitioners interested in doing urban forest ecosystem assessments. This guide is divided into three main sections designed to walk you through the process of selecting the best urban forest assessment tool for your needs and project. In this guide, you will find: Urban Forest Management, which explains urban forest management and the tools used for effective management How to Choose an Urban Forests Ecosystem Assessment Tool, which details the series of questions you need to answer before selecting a tool Urban Forest Ecosystem Assessment Tools, which offers descriptions and usage tips for the most common and popular assessment tools available Urban Forest Management Many of the best urban forest programs in the country have created and regularly use an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to define the scope and methodology for accomplishing urban forestry goals.
  • Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, San Francisco’S Urban Forest

    Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, San Francisco’S Urban Forest

    United States Department of Agriculture Assessing Urban Forest Forest Service Eff ects and Values Northern Research Station Resource Bulletin NRS-8 San Francisco’s Urban Forest Abstract An analysis of trees in San Francisco, CA reveals that this city has about 669,000 trees with canopies that cover 11.9 percent of the area. The most common tree species are blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress. The urban forest currently stores about 196,000 tons of carbon valued at $3.6 million. In addition, these trees remove about 5,200 tons of carbon per year ($95,000 per year) and about 260 tons of air pollution per year ($1.3 million per year). The structural, or compensatory, value is estimated at $1.7 billion. Information on the structure and functions of the urban forest can be used to improve and augment support for urban forest management programs and to integrate urban forests within plans to improve environmental quality in the San Francisco area. The Authors DAVID J. NOWAK is a research forester and project leader, ROBERT E. HOEHN III, is a biological sciences technician, DANIEL E. CRANE is an information technology specialist, JACK C. STEVENS is a forester, and JEFFREY T. WALTON is a research forester with the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station at Syracuse, NY. Acknowledgments We are grateful for the contributions of Alexis Harte, UFORE project coordinator; Leslie Bandy, survey coordination; Karin Avila, Sarah Cobey, Maria D’agostino, Rachel Freund, Meleana Judd, Lorraine Maldague, Jennifer Mar, and Kelly Palomera, surveyors. Published by: For additional copies: USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 February 2007 Fax: (740)368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us Executive Summary Trees in cities can contribute signifi cantly to human health and environmental quality.
  • The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept

    The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept

    The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is a common story line in many of today’s wildfire events. The WUI concept was formally introduced in 1987 Forest Service Research budget documents but was not acknowledged as a major component for federal fire management until the 2000 National Fire Plan. Although the 1987 introduction was meant to increase research focus on demographic factors influencing fire and other resource management, its California roots can be traced to post-World War II civil defense concerns about fire and water. The author offers a personal perspective on why the WUI concept was promoted by the Forest Service at an inauspicious time for fire research. The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept n January 27, 1987, President Ronald Reagan gave his sixth State of the Union address. Reagan’s speech was not well received.1 Forest Service O Research—and Fire Research in particular—had suffered through six years of the Republican president’s budget request reductions. Although these proposed reductions were partially offset by targeted (i.e., “ear- aged 51,805 fires and 2,021,846 acres burned and supported the mark”) restorations by the Democrat-controlled Congress, Forest argument that the “fire problem was solved.”2 This assumption Service research funding continually eroded. Fire activity in the would be reinforced by fire statistics that showed no discernible previous four years of the Reagan presidency (1983–86) had aver- upward trend. With the exception of the Yellowstone Fires in BY WILLIAM T. SOMMERS 12 FOREST HISTORY TODAY | FALL 2008 F. E. DUNHAM, U.S.
  • Urban Forestry Management Plan

    Urban Forestry Management Plan

    [URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN] A plan to sustainably, holistically and efficiently manage Bozeman’s urban forest to realize the full expanse of benefits urban trees can provide 1 Acknowledgements: Mitch Overton: Director of Parks and Recreation Bozeman Bozeman Tree Advisory Board The Bozeman Citizenry Jamie Kirby: Montana DNRC This document was funded by an urban forestry program development grant from the State of Montana - Department of Natural Resources & Conservation – Urban & Community Forestry Program Gallatin Tree Care, February 2016 Bozeman Urban Forestry Management Plan 2 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4 History and People .................................................................................................................................... 6 Process and Plan Development ................................................................................................................. 7 Climate and Environment ......................................................................................................................... 7 Population Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 8 Value of Urban Forest ..............................................................................................................................
  • Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values After Hurricane Impacts in Louisiana

    Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values After Hurricane Impacts in Louisiana

    Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values After Hurricane Impacts in Louisiana Kamran K. Abdollahi, Ph.D. Urban Forestry • The art, science, and technology of managing trees and forest resources in and around urban community ecosystems for the physiological, sociological, economic, and aesthetic benefits trees provide society. (Helms, 1998) • HELMS, JOHN A., ed. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. P. 193. Bethesda, Maryland: The Society of American Foresters. What is Urban Forestry • Science and Technology • Urban Forest Ecosystem Based Biophysical • Biophysical (Biological Management of Sustainable Urban Forest and Physical) Ecosystem for Improving • Management the Quality of life in Urban • Sustainable and Rural Communities. • Quality of Life Example: Baton Rouge Urban Forest Ecosystem Analysis • Collaboration with the • Utilization of the Results USDA-FS – Management • Why we used UFORE/i-Tree – Research • Innovations: Bioproduct • Results Development from Wood • Potentials for enhancing Waste generated from the urban forest i-Tree Eco – Education – Outreach – Policy & Investment/Funding Implications at City, State, and National Levels Enhancing Urban Forestry Education, Research and Outreach Regional and National Climate Change Assessment (Science and Technology Integration into Urban Forestry Education) Baton Rouge Capital of Louisiana Historic Sites &Tourism Native Trees Major Port City Urban Green Infrastructure Post-Hurricane Gustav and the need for Baton Rouge Urban Forest Assessment DEAD TREES REPORTED "REMOVED" Large, 13000, 21% Small, 22000, 36% Mid, 26000, 43% Urban Forest Ecosystem Analysis for Baton Rouge, Louisiana • Project Team – Kamran K. Abdollahi, Ph.D. (Professor, SU Ag Center) – Zhu Hua Ning, Ph.D. (Professor, SU Ag Center) – Puskar Khanel, Ph.D. (Former Ph.D. Student- • Assistant Professor-Clemson University) – Thomas Legindeniye, Ph.D.
  • Timber Trees and Enrichment Options in Tobacco Farms in Santiago, República Dominicana

    Timber Trees and Enrichment Options in Tobacco Farms in Santiago, República Dominicana

    Timber trees and enrichment options in tobacco farms in Santiago, República Dominicana. Polanco-Gómez, Jean Carlos1, López-Sampson, Arlene1, Imbach, Alejandro1, Ramírez, Tirso2 1Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza- CATIE. Contact: J. Polanco & A. López-Sampson : Email: [email protected]; [email protected]. Lead of the study INTRODUCTION 2. Agroforestry options for enrichment on tobacco farms • Deforestation and land uses change have decreased the provision of timber-based products worldwide (Butler 2009, • 48% of the farmers showed interest in planting timber trees on their farms while 52% are not willing to plant timber FAO 2009, Grimm et al. 2008) trees. • Timber is widely used in tobacco industry mainly in the processing of tobacco leaves. • Important to explore opportunity to integrate timber trees on tobacco farms. Agroforestry can be an option. • Of the 4 species proposed (all non-natives), Eucalyptus camaldulensis had the highest rank on preference/acceptance (33% of farmers) whereas Acacia Mangium was the species with the lowest acceptance (19%) • We identified the opportunities to integrate timber trees in agricultural lands and tobacco farmers perception on timber (Table 4). tree planting. METHODOLOGY • Eucalyptus camaldulensis preference was due to the rapid growth of the species, good form and strength. • 44 farmers who have land titles participated in the study (Snowball approach). • Gliricidia sepium was the species with the highest acceptance (33%) for linear planting, followed by E. camaldulensis • This study was carried out in the municipality of Villa González, located in the flat areas in the South of the hills of the and P. caribaea. While Acacia mangium had the lowest acceptance among tobacco farmers for linear planting (13%).
  • US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections

    US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections

    J. For. 116(2):164–177 RESEARCH ARTICLE doi: 10.1093/jofore/fvx004 Copyright © 2018 Society of American Foresters urban & community forestry US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections David J. Nowak and Eric J. Greenfield U.S. urban land increased from 2.6% (57.9 million acres) in 2000 to 3.0% (68.0 million acres) in 2010. States value of services provided by urban forests with the greatest amount of urban growth were in the South/Southeast (TX, FL, NC, GA and SC). Between 2010 across the nation. Research on urban forests and 2060, urban land is projected to increase another 95.5 million acres to 163.1 million acres (8.6%) with 18 over the past several decades has advanced our states projected to have an increase of over 2 million acres. Overall, there are an estimated 5.5 billion trees (39.4% understanding of this resource and its impact tree cover) in urban areas nationally that contain 127 million acres of leaf area and 44 million tons of dry-weight on society. These impacts include many eco- leaf biomass. Annually, these trees produce a total of $18.3 billion in value related to air pollution removal ($5.4 system services and costs associated with veg- billion), reduced building energy use ($5.4 billion), carbon sequestration ($4.8 billion) and avoided pollutant emis- etation in close proximity to people, many of sions ($2.7 billion). States with greatest annual urban forest values were: Florida ($1.9 billion), California ($1.4 which remain to be quantified. These services billion), Pennsylvania ($1.1 billion), New York ($1.0 billion) and Ohio ($971 million).
  • EQUATIONS for PREDICTING DIAMETER, HEIGHT, CROWN WIDTH, and LEAF AREA of SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STREET TREES by Paula J

    EQUATIONS for PREDICTING DIAMETER, HEIGHT, CROWN WIDTH, and LEAF AREA of SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STREET TREES by Paula J

    306 Peper et al.: Predicting Diameter, Height, Crown Width, and Leaf Area EQUATIONS FOR PREDICTING DIAMETER, HEIGHT, CROWN WIDTH, AND LEAF AREA OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STREET TREES by Paula J. Peper1, E. Gregory McPherson1, and Sylvia M. Mori2 Abstract. Although the modeling of energy-use re- 1961; Curtis 1967; Stage 1973). Shinozaki et al. duction, air pollution uptake, rainfall interception, (1964) presented a pipe model theory showing a and microclimate modification associated with urban strong relationship between conducting tissues trees depends on data relating diameter at breast (the “pipes” running from roots to branch tips) height (dbh), crown height, crown diameter, and leaf and the tissues that receive water and nutrients area to tree age or dbh, scant information is available for common municipal tree species. In this study, tree in the crown. This theory provided the basis for height, crown width, crown height, dbh, and leaf equations predicting leaf area from dbh and sap- area were measured for 12 common street tree species wood area. For urban forests, the development of in the San Joaquin Valley city of Modesto, California, equations to predict dbh, height, crown diameter, U.S. The randomly sampled trees were planted from 2 crown height, and leaf area of dominant munici- to 89 years ago. Using age or dbh as explanatory vari- pal tree species will enable arborists, researchers, ables, parameters such as dbh, tree height, crown and urban forest managers to model costs and ben- width, crown height, and leaf area responses were efits, analyze alternative management scenarios, modeled using two equations. There was strong corre- and determine the best management practices for 2 lation (adjusted R > 0.70) for total height, crown di- sustainable urban forests (McPherson et al.